From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mohan Sundaram Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 02:30:56 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] Best setup for redundant routers. Message-Id: <4758AD90.1060505@vsnl.com> List-Id: References: <7C454E01C5FAE748BEFE65F4C6B7FD8BFD2128@s-marcell.hemc.coop> In-Reply-To: <7C454E01C5FAE748BEFE65F4C6B7FD8BFD2128@s-marcell.hemc.coop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lartc@vger.kernel.org Grant Taylor wrote: > This looks to be a general routing related question rather than a "Linux > Advanced Routing and Traffic Control" (a.k.a. LARTC) question and thus > may be better answered elsewhere. *nod* > > On 12/06/07 10:43, Shane McKinley wrote: >> I am setting up 2 Vyatta routers that will serve as redundant >> failover core routers out to the backbone of our ISP. They will be >> serving for routing between other branches and the ISP and bandwidth >> management. Would be interesting to know how they perform. > Yes, an interior routing protocol would be good. Based on my limited > experience I would recommend that you use either (preferably) OSPF or > possibly Interior BGP (a.k.a. IBGP). Either is good. For just 2 routers, most dynamic protocols work well. Older protocols failed in scaling to larger networks. AFAIR, OSPF support discovered route cost propogation which is useful in route selection/ load balancing/ECMP etc. Do not remember if IBGP does it. Has been a while and so a little rusty on finer details. > You could look at things like RIP or ISIS, but neither of them will be > as good or bandwidth friendly as either OSPF or IBGP. For just 2 routers, the decision is pretty simple - any. I'd go with OSPF or IBGP depending on comfort, skillset and support at locations needed. Mohan _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc